There's a difference. The issuance/nonissuance of a marriage license won't affect your ability to spread the disease to your partner if you haven't spread it already (there aren't really that many people who "save themselves for marriage," are there?).
By comparison, keeping Typhoid Liam or Emma out of public kindergarten prevents (mostly, anyway) the exposure of a whole school full of tykes who are otherwise at risk just by showing up for class.
So, two diffs: rational connection between the law and the harm to be avoided, and the extent of the general public's risk.
It was here in Virginia when I was little. Now it seems like dumb to have the test before marriage. Before you first sleep with your soon to be ex would make more sense.
And since syphilis was specifically mentioned 3 times (syphilis and other communicable diseases...), I think we know exactly what she had going into it.
If that idiotic bill was passed there'd be a whole new line up of Jerry Springer guests - "we got tested soes we could get hitched and he had the clap!"
Yeah, many states required blood testing and even "genital examination" up through the 70s. But studies showed it was an absurdly expensive and ineffective way to screen for STDs, so states gradually dropped the requirement. I believe Montana is the last holdout, though the test is only for rubella, and it's optional - you can sign a waiver to omit it.
What if I have a sincerely held religious belief against dick disease testing? Or if it takes away my freedom not to have to do business with Big LabCo?
I'm sure I'd like you if I knew you and liked you.
Okay!
Most states phased it out years ago, except the ones that phased it back in.
There's a difference. The issuance/nonissuance of a marriage license won't affect your ability to spread the disease to your partner if you haven't spread it already (there aren't really that many people who "save themselves for marriage," are there?).
By comparison, keeping Typhoid Liam or Emma out of public kindergarten prevents (mostly, anyway) the exposure of a whole school full of tykes who are otherwise at risk just by showing up for class.
So, two diffs: rational connection between the law and the harm to be avoided, and the extent of the general public's risk.
We return you now to our regular snark.
Some clotted cream to go with that, guv'nor?
And now we're stuck with Hutchinson, Griffin, Rutledge, and Cotton.Kill me now!
It was here in Virginia when I was little. Now it seems like dumb to have the test before marriage. Before you first sleep with your soon to be ex would make more sense.
Still not far enough. Better screen for excessive melanin while you're at it. Better safe than sorry, eh?
I'd get married, but nobody likes me.
And since syphilis was specifically mentioned 3 times (syphilis and other communicable diseases...), I think we know exactly what she had going into it.
Toilet seat! I swear it was from a toilet seat, honey!!1!!!
Playing the field, or in the field? Perhaps they should test their livestock and certainly their chickens also too?
My thought as well. And since HIV is a chronic infection, no marriage for anyone who tests positive, ever.
If that idiotic bill was passed there'd be a whole new line up of Jerry Springer guests - "we got tested soes we could get hitched and he had the clap!"
Yeah, many states required blood testing and even "genital examination" up through the 70s. But studies showed it was an absurdly expensive and ineffective way to screen for STDs, so states gradually dropped the requirement. I believe Montana is the last holdout, though the test is only for rubella, and it's optional - you can sign a waiver to omit it.
What if I have a sincerely held religious belief against dick disease testing? Or if it takes away my freedom not to have to do business with Big LabCo?